Unfair - Who takes the extra wealth? Politicians? Because they are honest and aren't wasting public funds.
Wasting another person's money is the easiest thing in the world. If you're married and are the bread winner, you'd understand.
It'll kill the economy because innovators, entrepreneurs will simply move elsewhere.
Or worse, they'll limit their efforts to match the cap.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
Also see: The cobra effect
This is one of the possibility but not definite.
>> Unfair - Who takes the extra wealth? Politicians? Because they are honest and aren't wasting public funds.
The maker of the wealth can still keep the extra wealth but not as his own net worth or personal wealth and is not supposed to use it for his own benefits. Like even 1% of the wealth beyond cap should not go for his own benefit and instead should be forced to be used for the benefit of others.
LOL, no definitely not politicians, that would lead to the cobra effect.
Not suggesting simply one should hand over money above cap to others and forget but just not simply keep benefiting from the wealth beyond cap. Like making $1M and buy one home and then make $1B and then buy 25 homes. That sounds unfair at a global scale for a small amount of unfair at individual level.
>> Or worse, they'll limit their efforts to match the cap.
I don't think those who reach the cap would be narrow minded to limit below cap and i think they would simply keep going beyond cap for the greater good at least as they seem to project their image.
Why would they limit from cap, if they can find a way to make money they can still keep making money. Only thing is they cant simply use it for their personal benefit and all the money they make beyond cap should be used for other's benefits, its not unfair because they did not make all their wealth on their own individually, so many people bought products in amazon and supported their business for example.
Even now the wealthy individuals seem to be making such investment for others benefits in terms of charity but it seem to be a very personal choice which they can deny at will or very less to make any meaningful impact or goes in a skewed direction.
If such a rule is accepted globally, what would be a right number to set as cap?
You know charity is tax deductible right?
>Why would they limit from cap
This happened when France taxed people in higher income bracket
>This is one of the possibility but not definite
France's richest guy left the country. And France found it hard to attract managerial talent.
>they cant simply use it for their personal benefit and all the money they make beyond cap should be used for other's benefits
Sure. My cousin who doesn't bear my surname counts as "others" right. This would be a nightmare to track if self administered. If the wealth is collected by some TRUSTED party, same issue as I mentioned earlier - corruption.
We should instead be teaching the populace to abandon self, and be providing every single individual with sufficient means of survival for absolutely free: clean housing, nutritious food, purified water, and abundant electricity.
The extras can then be earned by performing extra civil duties.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" ... as long as individuals are attached to their greed.